Apologizing to the women who had to see it? How chivalrous of him. Also "Eye for an eye" was originally meant to PREVENT deaths because it was about avoiding disproportionate retribution. Good God, what an evil lunatic.

olithon20:As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

Terrorism is a word. Words have meaning. The word terrorism has a meaning.ter·ror·ism[ter-uh-riz-uh] Show IPA noun1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

We agree this was violence, right? Good, that's half of the definition right there. Now what was the purpose of this violence?

This may or may not be NSFW. It's not really that bad but tastes may vary, so you were warned. He's talking about the government. Seems to me he has a political purpose. I don't think it's wrong to use the word "terrorism" here. Perhaps since it's only one guy dead and an isolated incident, you believe it's pretty ineffective terrorism. But it is still terrorism.

His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

You could not possibly be any more wrong.

FTFA - ... He added: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

CEGORACH: Get out of the Middle East and within a month or two you'll never see another terrorist action because they will be too busy killing each other for the next fifty years to worry about coming over to your nation, and your domestic crop will all bugger off back home to lend a hand. Give them five years of it and you can even help install a few strongmen and then it's back to business as usual.

You need to study Islam a bit. This was another tiny part of a large war that has been going on since Islam was founded 1400 years ago. It is a war that will never end until Islam is de-legitimated and left on the trash heap of history. Islam means "submission" and its goal is to make the entire world Muslim. There will always be Muslims and Leftists who will find excuses and rationalizations for Muslims subjugating, repressing, beating, maiming, torturing and killing non-believers, as well as other Muslims. The fact is that the religion was founded on violence and terror and justifies violence and terror to achieve its goals. It is estimated that over 200 million people have died in Muslim wars of conquest since the 700s. Those wars of conquest are continuing to this day. Just ask non-believers places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Mali, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Bangladesh, India, East Timor, Sri Lanka, Syria, Israel, The Philippines, Macedonia, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Spain, Russia, China, India, etc.

Islam cannot exist in harmony with other religions and cultures because it is a supremacist ideology which exhorts its followers to make the entire world submit to Islam, one way or the other.

Open your eyes.

Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause."Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."Qur'an:9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them."Qur'an:8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."Qur'an:9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."Qur'an:9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."Qur'an:8:72 "Those who accepted Islam and left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause with their possessions and persons, and those who gave (them) asylum, aid, and shelter, those who harbored them - these are allies of one another. You are not responsible for protecting those who embraced Islam but did not leave their homes [to fight] until they do so." [Another translation reads:] "You are only called to protect Muslims, who fight."Qur'an:48:16 "Say (Muhammad) to the wandering desert Arabs who lagged behind: 'You shall be invited to fight against a people given to war with mighty prowess. You shall fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture."Qur'an:48:22 "If the unbelieving infidels fight against you, they will retreat. (Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah in the past: no change will you find in the ways of Allah."Qur'an:47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam."Qur'an:9:19 "Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Mosque, equal to those who fight in the Cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah. Those who believe, and left their homes, striving with might, fighting in Allah's Cause with their goods and their lives, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah.Qur'an:2:193 "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers."Qur'an:2:217 "They question you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (matter); but to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in Allah's Cause have the hope of Allah's mercy."Qur'an:2:244 "Fight in Allah's Cause, and know that Allah hears and knows all."Qur'an:2:246 "He said: 'Would you refrain from fighting if fighting were prescribed for you?' They said: 'How could we refuse to fight in Allah's Cause?'"Qur'an:3:146 "How many prophets fought in Allah's Cause? With them (fought) myriads of godly men who were slain. They never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah's Cause, nor did they weaken nor give in. Allah loves those who are firm and steadfast [warriors]."Qur'an:3:153 "Behold! You ran off precipitately, climbing up the high hill without even casting a side glance at anyone, while the Messenger in your rear is calling you from your rear, urging you to fight. Allah gave you one distress after another by way of requital, to teach you not to grieve for the booty that had escaped you and for (the ill) that had befallen you."Qur'an:3:154 "Say: 'Even if you had remained in your houses, those ordained to be slaughtered would have gone forth to the places where they were to slain."Qur'an:61:4 "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause." Qur'an:61:11 "Believers, shall I lead you to a bargain or trade that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive and fight in Allah's Cause with your property and your lives: That will be best for you!"Qur'an 61:12 "He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Eden: that is indeed the Supreme Achievement. And another (favor) which you love: help from Allah for a speedy victory over your enemies.

Would you support eugenics against black people because you heard reports of them committing a crime?

Large immigration numbers from the third world have enriched Europe and brought prosperity, inspiring feelings of brotherhood as they eagerly assimilate and adapt to the local culture. Thankfully, Europe has not changed and will not change with their presence. Things can only improve as the highly educated and highly skilled brown people work patiently to make Europe function like their own countries.

A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

From the same person who spent weeks searching Tea-Party protests for the 1 racist (who was kicked the fark out) in order to flood fark with that one image.

omnibus_necanda_sunt:And for Christ's sake, don't pretend there isn't a strong undercurrent of racism involved in Islamophobia. How many times does "white people" come to mind when you say the word "Muslim"? The Daily Show did an entire bit on how freaking weird white Muslims are and how America had trouble assimilating it post-Boston.

And nobody gives a shiat about the Balkans.

Actually the color of someone's skin doesn't come into play at all when I hear the word "Muslim".

PROTIP: Based on the classification of humans known as typology, Arabs are considered Caucasoids. It really has very little to do with skin color.

I'll just leave this here for you and kindly ask that you not play the race-card.

Ned Stark:Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.

Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.

super_grass:A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

The victims in the long run will of course be immigrants as racist, right-wing parties like UKIP try to use this excuse to clamp down on immigration.

What are you talking about? The "faith" of these two individuals has absolutely nothing to do with their race. Based on your handle, about all I can advise you to do is put down the weed & pick up a book... preferrably a dictionary or something on the topic of theology vs. anthropology and how to tell the difference between the two.

super_grass:A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

The victims in the long run will of course be immigrants as racist, right-wing parties like UKIP try to use this excuse to clamp down on immigration.

where the fark have you been for the last 40 year? this is not an isolated incident

/psst islam is not a race, but it is a death cult//exhibit 112317418976890602349783545 can be found in TFA

olithon20:As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

lockers:From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

Well, since the killers shouted "Allahu Akbar", you can confidently surmise that it was a terrorist nutjob.

lockers:Joe Blowme: lockers: From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

[www.vote29.com image 580x357]

And yet just last year two buddies drove around my city, shooting and stabbing black people who were well known racists by there friends and family. But it's only terrorism when muslims do it? Your beyond a stupid douche.

u mad bro? Truth hurts sometimes./so are you a member of teh death cult or just a dhimmi?

Father_Jack: dforkus: Father_Jack: dforkus: Father_Jack: JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.Oh, I see, blaming the religion is "barking up the wrong tree", it's all our fault.

Bull farking shiat.There are a billion hindus that are just as poor as the muslim underclass, hundreds of millions in central and south america that have been royally farked over by bad Western foreign policy, but they aren't hacking up people in the US/UK to "avenge their brothers"...

Islam's got a problem, a big farking problem, and they, so far, have been so wrapped up in their perpetual state of victimhood to really do anything about it.

where did i say its all our fault?

i'm just sayin' there is not a causal relationship between islam and terrorism. if there were, then the turks the indonesians, the malaysians etc would be doing the same thing. and they're not; they have successful states and are making money etc.

Turkey has no less than 12 active terrorist organisations (admittedly 1/3 of these are communist/marxist groups) they have to deal with inside their own borders including:

And yes wikipedia links, because they are easy to find and this is fark.com not my doctoral dissertation.

To state that Islam is not related to terrorism in a significant way is just delusional, and yes there are non-muslim terrorists, eg. the aforementioned communist/marxist ones in Turkey, the IRA, ETA etc, but the number of terrorists in the world today that are muslim so far outweighs the others, that being terrorist and not muslim is noteworthy by its exception.

Mellotiger:Has terrorism ever worked? Even once in the modern era? I mean, these are not small groups terrorists go up against, do they really expect millions of people to be like "oh man, we better do what these people say or they will kill a few of us every now and then!" It really just doesn't seem likely.

I dunno, 12 guys from Saudi Arabia managed to cost America untold billions of dollars and an ever-increasing number of their rights. Supposedly, terrorists hate us for our freedom, and now we're no longer free, so they have accomplished their mission. If that's not "working", I have no idea what "working" would look like.

There's a surefire way to stop these kinds of attacks, but nobody has the balls to farking say it:

Stop immigration from Muslim countries. All of it. If they can't get in your country, they can't kill your people on the streets. If a segment of foreign Muslims, even a small segment, consider all Muslims to be the enemies of the West, and see all Westerners as valid targets, the only logical thing to do is stop foreign Muslims from entering the country.

fark, it's a better solution than bombing the hell out of their homelands in retaliation.

Father_Jack:dforkus: Father_Jack: JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

if i, as a californian, cut the head off a texan, and proclaim a californihad against the texas infidel, does that make it true?if it happens again, and again, and again, and again, and all we hear from the Calfornian government is mealy mouthed half assed appolgies, interlaced with a littnanny of gripes about how the poor poor Calfornians are just so victimized by those big meany Texans? if that's all that ever happens, and there is no Californian commitment to actually address the problem?Well... Yes,,,

replace californian with NRA... still make sense?

? What in Allah's holy name are you blathering about, or is this just some kind of guilty-white-liberal word salad. I see your NRA and raise you one Michelle Bachman!

Father_Jack:dforkus: jst3p: dforkus: This is Islam religion. This is what Islam religion is.

yah, how many Quakers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Yes yes, all religions have their share of whackos, from the WBC, to the nutbag that killed George tiller, but Islam's problem with people doing horrible antisocial acts in its name is especially pernicious.

tis true they have a serious branding problem, and there are a lot of nutbags committing crime in the name of their religion. we in the west dont need to kill in the name of christ any more, we have other causes and legitimize our violence through state-run militaries. if these guys had access to the same tools, i'm sure they'd do the same thing. But they dont, so they resort to this shiat, the same way we would if we were in their position.

blaming the religion is barking up the wrong tree in my opinion. its addressing a symptom and not the disease. if the states or proto-states which generate these assholes functioned, and if we as the global hegemon (the Western NATO democracies) woudl quit pursuing a foreign policy which fuels these dickwads this'd gradually improve.

Oh, I see, blaming the religion is "barking up the wrong tree", it's all our fault.

Bull farking shiat.There are a billion hindus that are just as poor as the muslim underclass, hundreds of millions in central and south america that have been royally farked over by bad Western foreign policy, but they aren't hacking up people in the US/UK to "avenge their brothers"...

Islam's got a problem, a big farking problem, and they, so far, have been so wrapped up in their perpetual state of victimhood to really do anything about it.

JabbaTheButt:Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

The problem isn't between Islam and the West. The problem is between superstition and modernity.

The reason Islam stands out as particularly violent is that a relatively large (compared to the other religions) proportion of Muslims take their religion really seriously. When the Quran tells Muslims to kill non-believers, there are a lot of Muslims who see that as a genuine command that can't be ignored.

When the Christian Bible says, "anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death" -- Christians tend not to take that too seriously.

Bontesla:Imagine a homophobic guy that killed someone for being gay. This isn't terrorism - it's a hate crime. Now imagine he said, "As long as your kind exist, my kind will be there to kill you for your sins." This isn't terrorism. It's motive. Now suppose he said, "All of society will pay until the guys are purged and my buddies will make sure of it." That's terrorism. Subtle differences.

You're making the mistake of assuming there's a bright line between what constitutes terrorism and what constitutes a hate crime. There isn't. The totality of the circumstances have to be weighed when the State makes a decision about which class or crime -- if either -- the offense belongs to.

In the case as you described it, seems more of a hate crime than terrorism. But, changing only a few words shifts the balance.

Imagine, instead, the offender said, "until the government outlaws same sex marriage, my kind will be there to kill gays for their sins."

Did you ever notice that in countries which are predominantly Moslem a group is singled out as not being the right KIND of Moslem and that seves as justification to bomb their mosques - especially when occupied.

Bontesla:Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism. Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.

Terrorism is a tool of leverage used to convince your opponent that it's too costly to not give in to your demands.

Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.

In fairness, the guy did say something along the lines of "this is what will happen to you". Look, I totally understand the position of you and everyone else who is hesitant to label an act of violence "terrorism". Yes, people have abused the term to justify everything from increases in defense spending to limiting or taking away rights. BUt that does not mean terrorist and terrorism do not exist. This is very small scale, but it does appear to be terrorism.

Moosecakes:"Terrorists" makes it sound like an organized group, rather than the lone nutjob that it was. It's the difference between "gang beats up teenager" and "guy beats up teenager." Please make sure you get it right in the future subby.

stubby did get it right. You just don't understand words is all. People who are using violence to create terror and then justify it with reasoning used by terrorists are terrorists.

Ned Stark:way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.

Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.

The British can call them whatever they damn well please. That don't make it so.

You're probably right about how little protection they can lay claim to. They are pretty thin for the self-motivated and non existent if you haven't made a uniform for yourself.

Well if we are going to bring the (non-applicable) Geneva Conventions into this, why not just kill the perpetrators on the spot at the scene? No need for a trial if they are enemy soldiers in a war.

I know that a lot of brit politicians consider PM questions to be a waste of the PMs time in that he or she has to spend hours prepping, but I would LOVE to see it instituted here in the US.

I actually like the idea myself. It just seems so AMERICAN to hurl hostile questions at the head of the government.

It would never work for the same reason our presidential debates are awful: pivot.

Pivot? I don't get it.

I would like to see some kind of system in place to keep everyone on topic, however. I have long proposed that my Grand Ma-Ma be allowed to sit in for presidential debates. If a candidate would be asked a question and answer a completely different question, she would get to give them a slapping.

Mimic_Octopus:Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

Dr Dreidel:lockers: From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

There wasn't even a political motivation - this was "retribution" for a slight, not a "protest" seeking some reform or change.

// it's only terrorism because one of "them" did it

Check out BBC. They've got video of the guy standing there with the meat cleaver, blood on his hands, body in the middle of the street, saying it was terrorism. It's terrorism.

As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

lockers:From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

Uncle Tractor:Greymalkin: To state that Islam is not related to terrorism in a significant way is just delusional, and yes there are non-muslim terrorists, eg. the aforementioned communist/marxist ones in Turkey, the IRA, ETA etc, but the number of terrorists in the world today that are muslim so far outweighs the others, that being terrorist and not muslim is noteworthy by its exception.

Do you think this might have more to do with the political situations in that part of the world than with the religion itself? Besides, who needs terrorists when you have the GOP?

Well considering "that part of the world" stretches from Mali to Indonesia covering dozens of varied political, ethnic, geographical, and economic zones, not to mention all the various incidents in non-muslim majority nations you clearly have no farking idea what you are talking about so should go back to jerking off over which of the US political parties is worst.

What's up with the denial we go through every time something like this happens? Interesting to see a lot of people scrambling to make it out like this was just some crazy guy on drugs, and not a symptom of a larger problem.

But meanwhile, millions of people in Western nations continue to demonstrate the fact they are utterly desensitised to their government's involvement in over a decade of worthless, illegal warfare.

Remember that US soldier who went crazy and killed all those kids? Congrats if you do, 99% of the population sure don't.

In fact how many acts of personal atrocity committed by US/UK troops do you remember from the last DECADE of warfare?

Probably bugger all because that's what is supposed to happen. Meanwhile they are occurring at a rate that would freak you out, as would be expected by shoving often poorly-educated young men from lower socio-economic backgrounds in godforsaken hellholes and having them risk their lives with little support simply so politicians can say 'THINK OF THE TROOPS' to win votes and corporations can make $$$ hand over first. Meanwhile, their equivalents in certain nations have a field day inciting Jihad with all the evidence conveniently to hand.

So yeah, if you want to be outraged, you'd be better served raging at the older men on both 'sides' who fark up the lives and minds of young men, not the young men who commit these atrocities.

Get your head out from where Fox News and Friends shoved it and wake up to the fact that your government is still burning the lives of young men on both sides for fark all.

OMG OSAMA 9.11 NEVAR FOGET!

Really? Osama's farking dead folks, mishun accumplished! I think by now we've established there are no, and never were, any freaking WMDs in Iraq.

Get out of the Middle East and within a month or two you'll never see another terrorist action because they will be too busy killing each other for the next fifty years to worry about coming over to your nation, and your domestic crop will all bugger off back home to lend a hand. Give them five years of it and you can even help install a few strongmen and then it's back to business as usual.

Worried about the oil? Don't fret, they'll need the money to fund their internal warfare.

Wake up and realise that these awful muslim terrorists actually have VERY GOOD REASONS for doing what they do - the same way you would if a bunch of soldiers came into YOUR home town, raped a few young women and shot up a wedding or two before bombing the crap out of your grandad's house. Or even if it were happening to people in the next county over. Brown people, killing our men and raping our women? I think we all know what to do.

So yeah, today's yet another chance to realise that Western Democracy is in a News Corporation-induced coma, blind to its wars of aggression and desperately ramping up the siege mentality in order to churn out more votes and dollars for those who run the show. Don't go and burn your bra over it but start reminding people to wake the fark up.

Or you can just post some shiat about filthy muslims and good guys with guns, showing that you're just as backwards-ass ignorant as some AK-toting hick from a hillside in Afghanistan.

Has terrorism ever worked? Even once in the modern era? I mean, these are not small groups terrorists go up against, do they really expect millions of people to be like "oh man, we better do what these people say or they will kill a few of us every now and then!" It really just doesn't seem likely.

Father_Jack:JabbaTheButt: Wake up. As this murderer said, Islam is at war with the West.

if i, as a californian, cut the head off a texan, and proclaim a californihad against the texas infidel, does that make it true?

if it happens again, and again, and again, and again, and all we hear from the Calfornian government is mealy mouthed half assed appolgies, interlaced with a littnanny of gripes about how the poor poor Calfornians are just so victimized by those big meany Texans? if that's all that ever happens, and there is no Californian commitment to actually address the problem?

jst3p:dforkus: This is Islam religion. This is what Islam religion is.

yah, how many Quakers flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Yes yes, all religions have their share of whackos, from the WBC, to the nutbag that killed George tiller, but Islam's problem with people doing horrible antisocial acts in its name is especially pernicious.

Bontesla:lennavan: Bontesla: Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

If murder was the sole goal, then why did he stick around and seek out cameras to make a statement?

Bontesla: But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people?

You don't understand how the threat of beheading random citizens in the streets until British soldiers stop killing his people counts as leverage?

I can't help you dude. You're too far derp.

Why did he stick around? Some people like to explain their motivation. Some people like a grand exit. Some people are nutters. I never argued that he was a man without reasons - merely that his reasons don't quite fit terrorism.

I understand the point that you're trying to make: he committed an act that creates fear and that act was motivated by a political reason therefore he committed the act in an attempt to achieve his political goal.

His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

Bontesla:DeathByGeekSquad: It's only shocking if you don't understand the world outside of your own border.

Wait, what?

It's pretty straightforward. They disabled their victim and hacked him to pieces in front of a crowd for maximum public exposure. That happens elsewhere in the world. If you understand that the action happens elsewhere in the world, and is employed by specific groups of people, when those groups of people influence or direct it to happen in your neck of the woods - it isn't that shocking.

lennavan:Lady Indica: Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

Yeah, I saw that reporter (Daniel Pearl) get beheaded and I completely agree with you. The audio was what really sticks with you. I dunno why I watched that one but I won't watch anything like it again.

This. Saw it, wish everyday I could un-see it.

Fast forward to 4 years ago at a police academy in Texas: shown a video by a narco agent that shows a man being decapitated by Los Zetas for snitching.

Lady Indica:Mimic_Octopus: Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

I remember that video, probably '01 or '02 when Daniel Pearl got whacked. I went looking for the video thinking I could handle it myself, having watched dad skin animals in the basement when I was like 6 and having carried amputated limbs (in a bag) down to the hospital morgue when I worked as an OR nursing assistant.

I started to watch the video, up until the assassin started making small saw like cuts through the guy's windpipe with the serrated portion of his kabar. He probably didn't make it 1/8" of an inch through before I closed my eyes, and reached for the power button on the PC. I didn't even want to look at the monitor to close the media player. Rebooted it, and the first thing I did was delete that frickin' file.

That was the last time I even bothered with watching something like that. You just can't unsee that shiat.

HotWingConspiracy:Nabb1: Bontesla: No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

Oh, come on.

People throw their children off of bridges and say that God told them to, and we just regard them as nutters. So he may indeed just be a nutter.

But, the guy didn't just say "my god wanted me to do this." He connected the attack to a political goal. That's terrorism.

Of course, that doesn't mean that he's not nutters. I'm pretty sure the 9/11 terrorists were nutters, too.

Bontesla:No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

Ned Stark:way south: Ned Stark: Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.

Soldiers are legitimate targets for other soldiers when all sides are following their respective chains of command in a declared war.

Non-soldiers randomly going after a service member in peacetime it isn't legitimate war making, and they've probably got no protection under Geneva.Meaning the British can call them terrorists or murderers orwhatever and deal with them according to their governments laws.

The British can call them whatever they damn well please. That don't make it so.

You're probably right about how little protection they can lay claim to. They are pretty thin for the self-motivated and non existent if you haven't made a uniform for yourself.

You'll get no disagreement from me about this being one giant farked up gray zone.The rules of war were written in favor of the governments that signed them.

There isn't room for illegal or unsponsored combatants to find legitimate ground.If yoursovereign calls you a terrorist, it's what you are unless a competing authority steps up to claimresponsibility for you.

/The way I see it: A terror attack is a crime designed to instill fear in an audience beyond those directly harmed./Terrorism is the application of these attacks towards a greater goal by some organization or authority./Filming a murder for others to broadcast as propaganda would meet my personal benchmark for terrorism.

lennavan:Bontesla: Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism.

After sourced each of the required components to fit the definition of terrorism with quotes, you cannot possibly be pretending I am claiming this. You simply cannot be.

Bontesla: Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.

If you behead a guy on the street and then run to a camera and say "shiat like this is gonna keep happening until you pull your troops out of Muslim countries" that's terrorism.

Bontesla: Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is the very farking definition of the word more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.

It sure is. It seems you are arguing this guy's method of terrorism is ineffective. Fair enough. But that didn't require you to forget the definition of the word.

No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.From the same person who spent weeks searching Tea-Party protests for the 1 racist (who was kicked the fark out) in order to flood fark with that one image.

... while ignoring the hundreds of black faces protesting peacefully.

Yup. The Tea Party.

The diverse, tolerant Tea Party.

Hint: farkers call those tax-dodgers the American Taliban for a reason.

Ned Stark:Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.

ter·ror·ism noun\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of cohesion.

Funny, Webster's doesn't say anything about civilian or military targets.

LoneCraneFullMoon:Lady Indica: jennies1897: Lady Indica: Mimic_Octopus: Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

I think I've seen it, the audio is what got me not so much the visual. About ten years ago or so that made its rounds?

Yes. And yes. The audio was very disturbing.

The audio was the part that made me cringe. The...well, I don't need to go into detail, you heard it too. Felt really awful for the guy.

I think because it was unexpected. I had someone misrepresent the link, so I wasn't expecting any of it. If it helps, while it sounded farking awful once the artery is severed, the person is unconscious extremely quickly (within seconds). The rest is just the body making noise, going through the motions. So at least they were spared that. =\

olithon20:lennavan: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

Terrorism is a word. Words have meaning. The word terrorism has a meaning.ter·ror·ism[ter-uh-riz-uh] Show IPA noun1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

We agree this was violence, right? Good, that's half of the definition right there. Now what was the purpose of this violence?

Ok, so perhaps I was a little vague in my response. For which I apologise.

I will concede that this act would likely fit the bill for the definition of 'terrorism'. At the end of the day, any violent act committed could probably be argued to be an act of terrorism.

Remember that crazy guy who hacked up the poor dude on the bus in Canada last year? that was violent, but not terrorism.

And I wouldn't doubt that the people involved felt some form of ideological motivation to commit this act.

If their motivation is political/ideological...the attendant violence is pretty much terrorism.

However, I don't really feel like this is much more than some act of some rather troubled people. I don't see this (and I really hope that I am correct) as some big Terrorist plot, but simply some very angry men committing a violent, isolated act. Sadly, this sort of thing happens.

I doubt it's a BIG plot, but it's still terrorism.

Sometimes it's due to a misguided religious fervor, sometimes it's because the voices in thier head told them so. Sometimes both.

Again, while I deplore the act committed here today, I don't think it's worth getting too concerned over in the long term, unless it turns out to be some part of a greater plan, which right now I feel is unlikely.

I view Islam like I view Communism: regardless of their theoretical merits, in real-world practice, both are FAR too likely to be hijacked by violent extremists to the detriment of their own and neighboring societies.

Both suck as political systems, since they provide insufficient countervailing benefits to humanity to outweigh their manifold faults.

Lady Indica:jennies1897: Lady Indica: Mimic_Octopus: Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

I think I've seen it, the audio is what got me not so much the visual. About ten years ago or so that made its rounds?

Yes. And yes. The audio was very disturbing.

Oh lordy. I remember that one. That's where I learned that you really can't unsee (or unhear) things. I've been much more careful about clicking ever since.

happydude45:lockers: From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

Well, since the killers shouted "Allahu Akbar", you can confidently surmise that it was a terrorist nutjob.

And here I was thinking the dead giveaway was that fact that the guys sawed a cadets head off then told the people who witnessed it to remove their government or they'd never be safe.

jennies1897:Lady Indica: Mimic_Octopus: Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

I think I've seen it, the audio is what got me not so much the visual. About ten years ago or so that made its rounds?

Lady Indica:Mimic_Octopus: Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

I think I've seen it, the audio is what got me not so much the visual. About ten years ago or so that made its rounds?

A note to all the fark racists: two people do not represent more than a million followers, and it's not fair to judge an entire faith based on two people. Do McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers represent all christians? No.

The victims in the long run will of course be immigrants as racist, right-wing parties like UKIP try to use this excuse to clamp down on immigration.

Well.... every time the civilized world almost gets tired enough of the war on terror to give it up, something like this happens. Hope these backward savages enjoy using a snow shovel to clean their children out of the donkey pen because our drones NEVER get tired.

"Terrorists" makes it sound like an organized group, rather than the lone nutjob that it was. It's the difference between "gang beats up teenager" and "guy beats up teenager." Please make sure you get it right in the future subby.

lockers:From the brilliant analysis: "The case for this being a jihadist attack, following the ideology of al-Qaeda, is compelling - even if the police won't yet say so officially."

I like how lone nutjob is now equivalent to insidious terrorist plot. I guess when you have a permanent war on an imagined political phantom, every minor crime must be part of it to encourage it's maintenance. I see the same shiat on the local news and refuse to accept this as terrorism at all.

There wasn't even a political motivation - this was "retribution" for a slight, not a "protest" seeking some reform or change.

'Then thats how u know they were on sutn cos they actually went for armed feds with just two machete and an old rusty lookin revolver

'The first guy goes for the female fed with the machete and she not even ramping she took man out like robocop never seen nutn like it

'Then the next breda try buss off the rusty 45 and it just backfires and blows mans finger clean off... Feds didnt pet to just take him out!!

'These times i was just going to the shop for some fruit and veg and i see all that!'

Thank you.That actually read better than TFA.I see what happened now.

Couple of flipped out druggies whacked a random person and got shot for their assholiness.Good shoot.

hey, no sweat, been waiting a while for a thread so I could post that, eyewitness reports aren't always any better than news company releases but in this case it mentions a few things that are still being unreported, such as it being a beheading.Friends in London are worried about a night of rioting now.